This is pretty cool. I'm impressed with the work you've done.
I don't see any derivational principles for particular lexemes. I'm
reminded somewhat of blisssymbolics, which combines a small number of
graphemes to create complex characters for individual meanings. If I
had to coin or create a word for, say, wombat, how would I do it in
Neoglyphics?
If there's a separate, distinct, and mostly unpredictable character
for every single lexeme, I think this might get mighty cumbersome
mighty quickly. I don't know of any logographic languages that work
that way, and the only ideographic language I know of (blisssymbolics)
certainly doesn't.
I'm not saying Neoglyphics is cumbersome or won't work; I don't want
to dissuade you from working on it. It's fascinating. I'm just
wondering how you'll deal with "wombat" and "fungus" and
"polyagglutinative" and "dirigible."
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This page has been converted to PDF so the whole font embedding issue
> goes away. All glyphs should now display properly on all systems.
>
> --gary
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Gary Shannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 77 sentences in Neoglyphic in self-learning format. How well can you read it?
>>
>> http://fiziwig.com/conlang/neoglyph/mcguffy_1.html
>>
>> --gary
>>
>
--
I have stretched ropes from steeple to steeple; garlands from window
to window; golden chains from star to star, and I dance. --Arthur
Rimbaud